Pass Behind Page: 3 of 6

GoWest
January 31, 2025, 23:15:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11818607

Rubbish

Listen to the audio at 1.10 to 1.13

Controller asks PAT25 if CRJ in sight NO ANSWER

Controller asks PAT25 to pass behind. NO ANSWER

Dealt with.

Subjects ATC CRJ PAT25 Pass Behind Pass Behind (All) Pass Behind (PAT25)

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

1 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

jonas64
January 31, 2025, 23:21:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11818613

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoWest

Rubbish

Listen to the audio at 1.10 to 1.13

Controller asks PAT25 if CRJ in sight NO ANSWER

Controller asks PAT25 to pass behind. NO ANSWER

Dealt with.

Don't assume the audio the public has access to is the same as what the controller was hearing. The ATC audio archives from LiveATC are taken from ground stations, mostly operated by members of the public. It is far inferior in quality and reception to what the controllers are actually hearing.

Subjects ATC CRJ PAT25 Pass Behind Pass Behind (All) Pass Behind (PAT25)

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

8 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

AirScotia
January 31, 2025, 23:42:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11818626

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoWest

Rubbish

Listen to the audio at 1.10 to 1.13

Controller asks PAT25 if CRJ in sight NO ANSWER

Controller asks PAT25 to pass behind. NO ANSWER

Dealt with.

There are several recordings - not all of them capture the helicopter frequency.

This shows exactly the communications. The heli was told about the CRJ at 1200ft, going for 33. The heli said explicitly they had the plane in sight.

7:20 onwards.

Subjects ATC CRJ PAT25 Pass Behind Pass Behind (All) Pass Behind (PAT25)

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

No recorded likes for this post (could be before pprune supported 'likes').

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

LapSap
February 01, 2025, 00:03:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11818637

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyhighfirst

How is visual separation allowed in the US so close to the threshold?

Because it\x92s sometimes the best place to cross helicopter traffic through the final approach path.
Note I say \x91through\x92 and not \x91under\x92.

I\x92m sure it is done at many airports around the World and we have a similar procedure at a large international airport in East Asia.

HOWEVER, the idea that the 200ft ceiling on the heli route is designed to provide vertical separation from the approach is ludicrous.

I suspect that limit is imposed to allow clearance from the Take-off climb surface if using the opposite direction runways. That would indeed be possible from a flight procedure design point of view (TERPS or PANS-OPS).

The only safe way is to cross behind traffic on final laterally . In some ways it would be better for the heli to be at a higher altitude if on 33 but for simplicity of procedure they may have just made it a blanket 200ft regardless.

Our procedure has laterally separated holding points either side of final which is the clearance limit where the heli can orbit or delay as necessary until confirming the aircraft to pass behind is in sight. The heli is also advised where the next aircraft in the sequence is to further verify the correct aircraft is in sight and what margin they need to leave behind the one crossing behind. Again, being higher is better as they can avoid wake turbulence by remaining well an above the glide path and pass closer behind, well ahead of the following.
There is no doubt night time makes this a far more critical operation and requires full attention. In our operation the heli is also on the same frequency as the approach aircraft, so having separate positions to control fixed wing and helis wouldn\x92t have any benefit.
This controller was hugely busy however, handling departures as well. I can\x92t believe the speed of his transmissions - even as a controller for over 30 years I have trouble with all the abbreviated phrases- of course local pilots would be used to it and expecting clipped frequencies etc\x85

The trouble with a lot of these types of procedures is a lot is carried out as a box ticking exercise - heli calls requesting to cross the final ✅, LC provides the position of the aircraft to pass behind ✅, heli reports sighting and requests own visual separation ✅, approved ✅.
LC is no doubt expected to monitor compliance visually although hugely busy with other traffic on the runway. It does sound like he was doing so, especially when the CA goes off in the background audio and puts doubt in his mind the heli is passing clear of the CRJ. He asks again immediately.
The heli confirms, so difficult to further challenge the pilot.

In my view a poorly designed procedure which was guaranteed to place the 2 aircraft in the same position if an error was made.

Subjects ATC CRJ Pass Behind Pass Behind (All) Separation (ALL) Vertical Separation Visual Separation

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

5 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

FullyFullyReady
February 01, 2025, 00:18:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11818645

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoWest

Rubbish

Listen to the audio at 1.10 to 1.13

Controller asks PAT25 if CRJ in sight NO ANSWER

Controller asks PAT25 to pass behind. NO ANSWER

Dealt with.

I believe the controller was working two frequencies (duplexed?), probably 119.1 and 134.35, so raw LiveATC recordings would only pick up one side of the conversation.
The two traffic items probably didn't hear each other.

Subjects ATC CRJ Frequency 119.1 Frequency 134.35 PAT25 Pass Behind Pass Behind (All) Pass Behind (PAT25)

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

No recorded likes for this post (could be before pprune supported 'likes').

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

Denflnt
February 02, 2025, 00:07:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819398

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr dre

The CRJ were asked by ATC if they were able to accept an approach onto R33, they replied they could. They were well within their rights to refuse it, apparently one of the previous aircraft ahead of them had refused a request to to switch to R33.

If they had held the Helo short of the runway approach until enough radar separation to cross the approach path was available the Helo would have been orbiting for hours. When the helicopter crew confirmed they had the aircraft in sight they accepted responsibility they had identified the correct aircraft and could remain visual with it as they they crossed the approach path. If they had any doubt to this they should have stated so.

ATC intended for the helicopter to pass behind that CRJ not below it.

Actually ATC asked the Helicopter twice if they had the CRJ visual about 40 seconds apart, both times the helicopter replied yes, and the helicopter crew, not ATC, asked to maintain visual separation.

Yes, the CRJ could have not accepted ATC's request to divert to 33. They would have then been set to go around to set up again for Runway 1, the usual runway.

ATC put the CRJ on an intersecting runway, which added complexity to the pattern picture. The helo would have only had to hold for a short time to wait for the CRJ that was diverted to a runway not normally used for commercial air carriers.

Knowing that, they asked the helo to maintain visual separation, placing everything on that crew to see and avoid the CRJ. I have read that they didn't even tell them where to actually look to see the traffic, no bearing, no altitude. The helo likely saw traffic, just not where they were supposed to look. There were plenty incoming and departing Runway 1, which is why the CRJ was asked to divert. Add to that, both aircraft were low and operating over an urban area at night where it is difficult to see other aircraft. Worse even if the helo crew was using NVG.

ATC should have held the helo short, waiting for an unusual approach to a runway not used normally, so to let the CRJ pass. The CRJ crew was already saturated in tasks at the time I have not hear ATC asking them to look out for the helo.

IMO, ATC created a "single point of failure" relying on the helo to see and avoid the CRJ. Had they held the helo, and helos can hover, for even a minute, this doesn't happen. ATC's main purpose is to keep aircraft from occupying the same place at the same time. In this case, they didn't.

I am sure that the helo pilots made]mistakes. But, this appears to be a massive failure of ATC.

Last edited by Denflnt; 2nd February 2025 at 00:46 .

Subjects ATC CRJ Hover Night Vision Goggles (NVG) Pass Behind Pass Behind (All) Radar See and Avoid Separation (ALL) Visual Separation

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

1 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

Easy Street
February 02, 2025, 02:56:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819470

Quote:

Originally Posted by PuraVidaTransport

If the Army pilots mistook another aircraft for the CRJ they were warned of at least three times, can someone look at the radar and explain which aircraft they thought was the CRJ? I see none they could have possible been watching instead. Considering the distance from one warning to the next and the Army pilot's assurance of seeing the CRJ both times, I don't see how any light on the ground could have been their focus either.

AAL3130 on final to runway 1. The diagram at my #432 shows how there was only 12 degrees difference in bearing between it and the CRJ. Someone else did a reconstruction showing that the differences in height and range made the elevation angles similar too. It's very difficult to judge distance at night (and impossible on NVGs). And unlike the CRJ, the AAL was pointing directly towards the helo so its landing lights would have looked brighter.

I suspect the helicopter's gradual turn to the right was a result of the pilots fixating on AAL3130 and instinctively flying to pass just behind it, without realising how far away it was.

Edit: this is the reconstruction which shows the similarity in elevation. Captain Steve and Juan Browne have put forward the same theory on their channels but without quite the same compelling graphics.

Last edited by Easy Street; 2nd February 2025 at 03:09 .

Subjects CRJ Night Vision Goggles (NVG) Pass Behind Pass Behind (All) Radar

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

No recorded likes for this post (could be before pprune supported 'likes').

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

Lead Balloon
February 02, 2025, 03:23:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819488

Quote:

Originally Posted by photonclock

Of course. So lets assume the readings to be at the outside of the envelope to the benefit of both aircraft, ie, CRJ at 350 (325 +/- 25 as stated by NTSB), and 200 +/- 75 for the helicopter, so 125. That's 225 feet of vertical-only separation. Is that considered acceptable? If not, why did ATC allow it?

ATC didn't "allow it".

The procedures allowed the controller to hand responsibility for separation to the helo pilot, once the helo was instructed to pass behind an aircraft which the helo said it had identified (twice I think?). However, it seems that the helo identified the wrong aircraft. That's hardly surprising when it's night, there's lots of stationary and moving lights around, and one of the apparently stationary lights is in fact bolted to an aircraft with which you're on a collision course.

Subjects ATC CRJ NTSB Pass Behind Pass Behind (All) Separation (ALL)

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

13 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

cbradio
February 02, 2025, 06:15:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819534

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denflnt

Miniimum vertical separation is 500'. The helo would have had to be a submarine to maintain separation. The helo should have been told to hold short, and wait for crossing traffic. That is what ATC is supposed to do, maintain separation from controlled aircraft.

ATC did do what he is "supposed" to do. The Blackhawk was told to "pass behind". Nothing to do with vertical separation. It's a form of separation. That's how it works. Thousands of times every day, all over the place.

As a system ' - at night - I think it's crazy. But that's the system.

Subjects ATC Blackhawk (H-60) Pass Behind Pass Behind (All) Separation (ALL) Vertical Separation

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

4 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

DaveReidUK
February 02, 2025, 07:39:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819561

Quote:

Originally Posted by cbradio

To be fair to posters, the preceding 650-odd posts have contained a disturbing number harping on about "vertical separation" - and the media haven't helped, either.

Subjects ATC Blackhawk (H-60) Pass Behind Pass Behind (All) Separation (ALL) Vertical Separation

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

6 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

henra
February 02, 2025, 16:21:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819897

Quote:

Originally Posted by cbradio

But why didn't the controller intervene then when the Helo kept closing in? What horizontal separation did he deem OK?

Subjects ATC Blackhawk (H-60) Pass Behind Pass Behind (All) Separation (ALL) Vertical Separation

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

No recorded likes for this post (could be before pprune supported 'likes').

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

dukof
February 03, 2025, 14:07:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11820561

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveReidUK

This was discussed earlier, with several posts being based on listening to an incomplete ATC recording which failed to pick up the (UHF) frequency on which the helicopter crew were responding.

As far as I can see, the helicopter crew when asked twice if they had the CRJ in sight responded in the affirmative both times. I think it's a tad unfair to criticise the controller for not being able to divine that they were actually looking at a different aircraft in the approach sequence.

"do you have the CRJ in sight" .."pass behind the CRJ" shows indeed he's uncertain of their awareness and wants them on a different heading. But the communication is completely inadequate to resolve the concern in the 15 sec time window left to intersection. It brings zero locational information of either the CRJ or the heading change they need to execute. The best possible outcome was clear to be a very near miss. With according to radar PAT at 200ft, CRJ descending from 500 at 600ft/min, and a 100ft radar resolution, there is zero margin here. So if you don't command a snap heading change at zero projected margin, at what point do you..?

Subjects ATC CRJ Close Calls Pass Behind Pass Behind (All) Radar

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

No recorded likes for this post (could be before pprune supported 'likes').

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

YRP
February 03, 2025, 14:45:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11820598

Quote:

Originally Posted by dukof

Yes the controller was concerned enough to check again, not alarmed though.

But the controller doesn\x92t know they have the wrong plane. Guess: he\x92s just checking they didn\x92t think they\x92d passed it already.

Either way, the controller does not have enough information to use a heading \x97 neither to know one is needed nor what it should be . The radar & display is just not as accurate as a Mark I eyeball in one cockpit seeing the other plane out the window.

When would he? \x93Tower, PAT25 has lost that traffic\x94. Until then a vector might bring them *into* a collision.

Subjects ATC CRJ Close Calls PAT25 Pass Behind Pass Behind (All) Radar

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

1 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

Hot 'n' High
February 03, 2025, 15:50:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11820651

Quote:

Originally Posted by Old Boeing Driver

I have personally flown the the approach scenario that PSA was flying. ........ It has been in use for decades. ......... I expect most pilots operating into DCA, and possibly this PSA crew have done this..........

The events of the actual night backs you up OBD . I noted the CRJ (BS5342) had company traffic(?) (BS5347) joining behind the 2 x AAs (3130 and 5472 ) which checked in with Twr literally seconds after the accident took place so they had no idea anything was up. Their opening call was along the lines of "BS5347, is on final, request 33 ... circle for 33." - a request they even made a second time on their 3rd call attempt. That implies that 33 was quite a regular event (maybe just to cut the taxi time down at the end? Don't know......) so I'd be surprised if the accident crew hadn't used it before as well - maybe a number of times. Certainly the accident crew accepted the Twr request to switch to 33 quite quickly suggesting it was "no sweat" to them. What was sad is the following company traffic (BS5347) checked in 3(?) times trying to get Twr's attention but, of course, Twr was busy with the 2 x G/As ahead of them on 01. Even after they probably realised people are executing G/As from 01, they still don't know whats happened ahead of them and, on their 3rd call, ask for "33" again ..... only to then be sent around themselves.

On the general subject of the 2nd Twr call to PAT25 and issuing avoidance instructions from BS5342, my take would be that maybe Twr saw it so late and simply didn't have an accurate mental picture of the precise trajectories of the helo and the CRJ to actually formulate a plan to deconflict safely. The only hope was that the helo crew "still" had the aircraft in sight (as they had already stated they had) and were still going to pass behind the CRJ............. Sadly, by then, that was just wishful thinking. At that late stage, all ATC probably knew was that ordering an evasion maneuver was just as likely to turn a near-miss into an accident as it was to turn an accident into a near-miss. A "Rock and a hard place springs" to mind....... One can only feel for the ATCO ...............

Subjects ATC ATCO CRJ DCA PAT25 Pass Behind Pass Behind (All)

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

4 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

Lonewolf_50
February 03, 2025, 16:21:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11820674

The right turn does not make sense.

If the guess that PAT25 saw the traffic for 01 (further south,who was #2 for landing, with the CRJ being #1) and not the traffic for 33, they were still advised by ATC to pass behind their traffic .
As you look at the various diagrams of the final geometry, with their initial southerly heading, any right turn would have them pass in front of the traffic approaching 01 (and yes, also it would cause them to cross in front of landing traffic for 33 if they saw that, though it appears that they didn't.).
Why the right turn rather than simply following the east bank (of the declared route) until the traffic that they did see (apparently the aircraft approaching 01) was passing their right side?
It makes no sense to me.

It appears that poster 51bravo has made a similar observation, worded differently.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 51bravo

So why for gods sake did they continue into 33 runway extension before AA3130. Was there also a disorientation towards their current position relative to DCA runway systems and they also easily (at night, mental bias) took RWY01 for RWY33 ? It almost looks so. Once more the narrow vision of NVG cheese slice ?!

Speculation follows:
If what you suggest is true, that neither pilot in the cockpit was familiar with the runway lay out of National(Reagan) Airport, that's an enormous hole in a slice or three of the cheese. I expect that subtle details like this may, or may not, eventually come out as the investigation progresses.

For patrickal:
While I appreciate the effort your put into that extended analysis, you are quite wrong about what a training mission is, the least of which is why one needs to do actual flying in an area to be competent in a given operations area, and why you have to do them in daylight and at night since your mission will call on your unit to undertake that mission, VIP transport, day or night.
The airspace in and around DC, writ large, is one of that unit's required operations area.
Your point 11 has so many things wrong about it that I won't waste further time on it.
In terms you might understand: no sale.

Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 3rd February 2025 at 16:45 .

Subjects ATC CRJ DCA Night Vision Goggles (NVG) PAT25 Pass Behind Pass Behind (All)

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

3 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

WHBM
February 03, 2025, 20:31:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11820870

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50

There were a number of aircraft around in the dark, which makes repeated unqualified reference just to "the CRJ" quite liable to error. I still wonder if the "Can you see the CRJ ... pass behind the CRJ" was being interpreted as the aircraft on the ground lining up on 01, the nearest aircraft to them and just on their right. They could see it, and they turned to pass behind it.

Subjects ATC CRJ PAT25 Pass Behind Pass Behind (All)

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

1 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

island_airphoto
February 03, 2025, 20:38:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11820877

Quote:

Originally Posted by WHBM

I have been asked to blink my landing lights and asked others too. Otherwise a C-172 about to hit me, a C-5 a long way off, and Venus are all about the same. Helicopters with the running lights about 6 feet apart are the worst, they end up looking like an airplane a lot further away.

Subjects CRJ Pass Behind Pass Behind (All)

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

8 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

spornrad
February 03, 2025, 21:26:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11820910

Quote:

Originally Posted by WHBM

Unlikely. The helicopter crew was told about the CRJ approaching 33. At the moment of that initial traffic advisory it meant, the CRJ would first cross their flight path from right to left, and then later on final (circle to land) from left to right. Did they simply expect still the former, seeing the second jet approaching 01, misjudging the timing / distance as to the CRJ, and therefore turning right to pass behind / give way to an approaching aircraft espected to turn any moment and cross their path from right to left?

Last edited by spornrad; 3rd February 2025 at 23:06 .

Subjects CRJ Circle to Land (Deviate to RWY 33) Pass Behind Pass Behind (All)

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

1 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

DIBO
February 03, 2025, 22:46:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11820975

Quote:

Originally Posted by spornrad

Unlikely. The helicopter crew was told about the CRJ approaching 33. At the moment of that initial traffic advisory it meant, the CRJ would first cross their flight path from right to left, and then later on final (circle to land) from left to right. Did they simply expect still the former, seeing the second jet, misjudging the timing / distance as to the CRJ, and therefore turning right to pass behind / give way to an approaching aircraft espected to cross their path from right to left?

If people (and even 'reliable Youtubers') would stick to the available facts, instead of complicating things
No crossing of 'Route 4' prior to ...

Subjects CRJ Circle to Land (Deviate to RWY 33) Pass Behind Pass Behind (All) Route 4

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

2 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

Lonewolf_50
February 05, 2025, 18:28:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11822429

Quote:

Originally Posted by MechEngr

Seriously?

Since they were flying at roughly 100kts (based on the evidence so far presented) a smooth slowdown to 60 knots works, you aren't doing a quick stop, and the plane handles easily.
They were flying Night VFR, not Day VFR.
If I am flying at night over a river at 200' yes, I want to fly smoothly, particularly if my ~~hard~~ max altitude for that route is 200'.
Maybe, Mech, if you don't know what you are talking about, you keep a sock in it rather than saying something stupid like this:

Quote:

Impossible to stay in the air at 50 knots?

1. I didn't say that, you did
2. I was sharing (IME means In My Experience) my experience with flying that family of helicopters.

The core problem seems to have been that they never saw the CRJ. Had they seen it, my guess ~ this is speculation ~ is that they'd have turned left and done a 360 degree turn for spacing, particularly since towers instruction was "pass behind" ... and doing that would have, accomplished that. But that isn't how it turned out.
=======
Edited to account for the technical point John Dixson made.

Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 6th February 2025 at 13:10 .

Subjects CRJ Pass Behind Pass Behind (All) VFR

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

5 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

Posts about: "Pass Behind" [Posts: 111 Page: 3 of 6]¶